Each generation has a defining moment, one that prompts individuals to ask, "Where were you when . . .?" Usually such moments are national; rarely does a single event touch lives across the world. Sept. 11 was one of those international tragedies. A year ago today, the world watched transfixed as hijacked airliners crashed into targets in the United States (one, thanks to the heroism of its crew and passengers who overcame the terrorists, plunged to earth in a Pennsylvania field). The crashes killed more than 3,000 people, heralding the arrival of a grim, new era. The events of Sept. 11 have had a profound effect on governments and individuals worldwide. Yet it is unclear whether we have truly absorbed the lessons of that day.

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks ushered in a new era of insecurity in the U.S. As only the third foreign attack on U.S. soil during the country's history, they shattered the myth of American invulnerability. For two centuries, the U.S. had been confident that two oceans insulated it from the turmoil and tumult of other parts of the world. Sept. 11 ended that false sense of security.

In response, the U.S. took military action against the government in Afghanistan, a country that most Americans could not find on a map and whose grievances they could not understand. President George W. Bush spoke openly of the presence of evil in the world and of his country's mission to terminate the threat posed to peace and security. For him, the choice was simple: Nations are either "with us or against us." After defeating the Taliban and taking on "the second front" in Southeast Asia, the war drums are beating louder as the U.S. administration lays the groundwork for an assault on Iraq, another regime that speaks the language of the Sept. 11 terrorists.

The economic effects of Sept. 11 are still rippling through the global economy. It is estimated that the damage to New York City alone will total $40 billion. The military campaign in Afghanistan adds $80 billion to the bill. Additional indirect costs, such as the insurance premiums businesses must now pay and the security measures, add billions more to the tally.

The economic impact is being felt worldwide. Every nation has been affected by the rising price of oil, while stock markets around the world have shed trillions of dollars in value in the last year. There are many reasons for those losses that have nothing to do with Sept. 11. -- accounting scandals and the recognition that there was a "bubble" in the U.S. stock market. Still, the lingering fear in the aftermath of the attacks that there will be more is an important contributing factor.

The greatest effect is psychological. Americans now feel vulnerable. Incredibly, no nation or hostile government did this. Rather, 19 men, armed with box cutters, have changed irrevocably the way Americans view the world. The investigation into the attacks has revealed the shifting balance of power between governments and individuals as well as the new dangers that have been created by globalization.

Thinking about national security will never be the same. Terrorists have long been a concern, but they have assumed greater significance in the last year. Despite Mr. Bush's "black and white" formulation, it has become clear that threats emerge from unexpected places -- who would have thought that a ragtag bunch living in the caves of a Third World country could destroy two international landmarks half a world away? -- and that cause and effect have long and twisted linkages. There are no simple solutions to the most important questions.

Sept. 11 has also forced Americans to face the gap between their image of themselves and the way they are viewed internationally. On Sept. 12, newspapers around the world could proclaim that "we are all Americans," but soon thereafter the anger and rage that animates many became evident. Americans have a deeply felt belief in their own good intentions and the righteousness of their cause. And yet, over the past year, there has been a growing recognition of the incompatibility of U.S. objectives and interests with those of other nations, triggering talk of a "clash of civilizations." The U.S. has come face to face with the deeply seated distrust -- and yes, even hatred -- created by its policies and its success. The U.S. people and their government must not shy away from an understanding of that unpleasant reality and work to change it.

At the same time, for all the changes created by Sept. 11, there are many continuities. The world on Sept. 12 looked a lot like it did on Sept. 10. There may be "new security threats," but old ones remain. There is the ever-present danger of a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, in the Taiwan Strait or in Kashmir. One-third of the world's population lives on less than $2 a day and hunger is more widespread than anger. Sept. 11 should have taught us that we ignore those continuities at our peril.

The Japan Times: Sept. 11, 2002
(C) All rights reserved

Jeff Hamacher

11th September 2002, 00:05

thank you, Peter, for posting that. i don't think that i've read a more balanced retrospective on the 9-11 attacks, and some of the commentary was just spot on.

although the economic fallout from 9-11 continues to go global, the only thing i would object to is the notion that the attacks were truly "international" in nature. i think the main reason that people the ("developed") world over were so captivated by the event was total shock and surprise; an attack on non-combatants of that scale on the US mainland was unimaginable to most. the unbelievably dense media coverage of the attacks and their immediate aftermath also brought home the impact to people outside the US in a way that would have been impossible without our wired world of ENG and CNN. in my part of japan, it seems, people think little more about 9-11 than to reinforce their opinion that "foreign countries are dangerous while japan is very safe". to the japanese government, of course, the War On The T-Word is a great excuse to change the constitution so that it can officially run a full military again ... but that's for another thread.

gmellis

11th September 2002, 01:27

Diddo what Jeff said.

Kimpatsu

11th September 2002, 01:34

One other corollary to the events of 9/11 is that governments around the world, not only Japan, have used it as an excuse to flaunt their authoritarian natures in totally unwarranted crackdowns that, in many cases, defy their own national constitutions. Food for thought: Will the 21st century ultimately prove more tyrannical than the 20th?

IchiRiKen1

16th September 2002, 10:05

How does the saying go? "At what price freedom?"

I can be very critical of my government for what it does regarding a lot of things, and there have been some things regarding the Aftermath that I have been less than supportive of, but the attack was unjustified, unnecessary, and causes me to rally behind my flag and want plain simple retribution.

I saw a really interesting CNN show that showcased the "motivations" behind the Afghani anger toward the US - we didn't pay to fix their country after the Soviets got kicked out. Because somehow, since our country had money and theirs didn't, we were supposed to foot the bill. A country so poor that its main exportable item is dirt catches a case of the a$$ against the US because we have cash and they don't.

Sorry, but that doesn't ring in in my book as an excuse for the slaughter of 2000+ innocents.

Too many civilian casualties I read in another of these Japan Times news postings... The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan due to the "war" has yet to tally the number of innocents killed at the WTC. I figure we have a little credit built up given the numbers of our dead (I mean this flippantly, no matter how macabre it may be), and if some of the alleged civilian casualties hadn't been firing weapons into the path of oncoming aircraft (because they were just being Arkansian and tryin' to have a good time at a party... NOT!), they likely wouldn't have been smart bombed...

My government is not totally right in this endeavor. There are some personal freedoms that will inevitably be sacrificed in favor of governmental controls. Other countries will also "crack down" on the liberties of their citizenry. Sorry, but how high does the price of freedom have to get before we begin to enjoy security along with it?

Personally, I am okay with longer security checks at the airport, a little paranoia in the air wherever I go, as long as my son and daughter are guaranteed the ability to NOT be blown up just because they are Americans...

I'm tired, I write this at 4 in the morning, so forgive me if it is incomplete, not well thought out, ranting or inflammatory. But how many of you have lost sleep pulling guard duty? How many of you have had to search the vehicles of your neighbors wondering if they had unwittingly been targetted with small devices? How many of you have been pulled away from your families in response to this situation? How many of you have lost friends and loved ones thanks to the callous acts of some idiot with a political agenda? I understand my views may not be politically correct, nor internationally acceptable. I am a soldier, simple and true, and the minute my country was attacked because of some B$ agenda, it got personal...

Wish I could debate this with some of you in person. Miss my mates in Japan. Have a beer for me when you get together this month...

16th September 2002, 10:40

Just to get a little off track...............

What is the deal with Sodom Hussien? All we ever see or meet with is Haziz (Foreign Minister?). How come we don't get to meet with the top man himself? In fact I can't recall ever hearing of him leaving Iraq or meeting with any of the major world leaders.
Now that GW is chompin' at the bit to invade Iraq you would think "The Sodomizer" could avoid a lot of grief in his life if he and GW had a sit down. Dunno......just seems odd.

Jeff Hamacher

17th September 2002, 03:44

Matt,

good to hear from you, pal. as you've pointed out before, both here and in person, your perspective is that of a soldier, a person charged with the practical defense of their country. it comes as no surprise, then, that your reaction is a call to arms. as tempting or sensible as pacifism might be under other circumstances, the US needed to hit back, and hard. the continued vigilance and operations against terrorist attacks and the networks that carry them out are also necessities of this "post 9-11" world. increased airport security i can agree with; like Tony, though, i worry a bit about slowly expanding incursions against civil liberties.

i think that the import of stories, such as the one you mentioned about "Afghani anger", is that people around the world may have a very different perception of the USA than do american citizens. it matters little that those foreign opinions are full of anger or hate; if the hate exists, then it poses a threat of developing into the urge to become the next "glorious martyr for God". the current state of Afghanistan is not simply the result of US action, but rather the fact that it became another pawn in the not-so-Cold-War struggle between the US and the USSR.

our prime minister Jean Chretien was recently mentioned during an edition of Larry King Live, partly because he was misrepresented as having said that, "the US brought the 9-11 attacks on itself". the thrust of his actual comments was that the 9-11 terrorists and others like them harbour their hate over actions (real or perceived) taken by western nations. Mr. Chretien suggested that we in the "west" be mindful of how we act now lest we sow the seeds of tragedies 10, 20, or even 30 years down the road. the present US government cannot deny its support for Saddam or for bin Laden only a few years ago. at least part of the 9-11 puzzle is that those problems came home to roost. another most unfortunate footnote to the fallout is the rise in reports of race-related assaults and discrimination in the US against "nondescript brown people". President Bush talks a fine talk on the defense of liberty and justice in this War on Terror, but at least some americans need to remind themselves of what those words mean.

as to Robert's questions, Saddam is like any other half-mad, power-drunk, cult-of-personality despot. the potential for him to lose face in front of foreign politicians is enormous, mainly because he surely has a ridiculously overblown perception of himself and the respect he deserves. i've been to North Korea, and if Saddam is given the official lip service anything like that paid to Kim Jong Il (or even more so his father, Kim Il Sung), he's practically a god walking the earth. to me, it matters little whether he has first-hand dealings with the outside world. he probably knows he's toast if he calls the bluff of the US military, and as long as someone can push the arms inspectors back into the country to run comprehensive and above-board checks, we might just avoid a war that no-one really wants.

17th September 2002, 03:59

Originally posted by Jeff Hamacher

as to Robert's questions, Saddam is like any other half-mad, power-drunk, cult-of-personality despot. the potential for him to lose face in front of foreign politicians is enormous, mainly because he surely has a ridiculously overblown perception of himself and the respect he deserves. i've been to North Korea, and if Saddam is given the official lip service anything like that paid to Kim Jong Il (or even more so his father, Kim Il Sung), he's practically a god walking the earth. to me, it matters little whether he has first-hand dealings with the outside world. he probably knows he's toast if he calls the bluff of the US military, and as long as someone can push the arms inspectors back into the country to run comprehensive and above-board checks, we might just avoid a war that no-one really wants.

Maybe it's also due to the fact that if he ever does visit another country the sharp shooters will have a better shot at him..:D

Jeff Hamacher

17th September 2002, 04:45

Originally posted by Robert Rousselot
>> Maybe it's also due to the fact that if he ever does visit another country the sharp shooters will have a better shot at him. <<

absolutely! given that Iraqi dissidents are becoming more and more vocal against Saddam's rule, it's really only a matter of time before he's ousted. the difficulty, of course, is avoiding some crazy "screw you all" missile launch before he can be removed from power. on a moral level, i can't condone killing him, but by the same token he's not going to go quietly. and as people keep pointing out, what do you do to fill the power vacuum? are there any homegrown leaders willing to make a go of true democratic government? what kind of international peacekeeping role might the world have to play until the situation stabilizes? taking out Saddam (probably) removes the threat of WMD production for acts of terrorism or wanton violence, but just like Afghanistan, it's not going to be all peaches and cream just because he's been removed.